Hi.
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 17:01 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
The freezer in 2.6.20-rc6 should be SMP-safe and the patches to change
the suspend-resume code ordering are in -mm:
pm-change-code-ordering-in-mainc.patch
swsusp-change-code-ordering-in-diskc.patch
Hi.
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 14:57 +, Avi Kivity wrote:
Add the necessary callbacks to suspend and resume a host running kvm. This
is just a repeat of the cpu hotplug/unplug work.
Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maybe it's just a lack of understanding, but I'm wondering if
Hi.
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 23:19 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 January 2007 22:20, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 14:57 +, Avi Kivity wrote:
Add the necessary callbacks to suspend and resume a host running kvm.
This
is just a repeat
Hi.
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 11:56 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Greetings,
I received the below upon first poke of firefox icon after a resume.
Are you able to reproduce it reliably? Failing that, could you try
enabling some the kernel configuration options that help with debugging
memory
Hi Paul.
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 17:26 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
This patch adds an optional preemption kernel thread to the rcutorture
tests. This thread sets itself to a low RT priority and chews up CPU
in 10-second bursts, verifying that grace periods progress during this
10-second
Hi Paul.
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 18:31 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
Good to hear from you, Nigel!
Thanks :)
Should indeed be OK to freeze during suspend/hibernate. Will my
schedule_timeout_interruptible() be sufficient to allow the freeze
to happen, or do I need to add an explicit
Hi.
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 06:30 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Rebuilding this particular kernel with slab debugging would probably be
a waste of time since stable kernels get very little runtime here, but
I'll re-add it to my config for test kernels just in case a survivable
event should
I have no idea now why this fragment was in the patch, and Olaf has
rightly questioned it.
Please apply.
Regards,
Nigel
diff --git a/drivers/macintosh/via-pmu.c b/drivers/macintosh/via-pmu.c
index c8558d4..e63ea1c 100644
--- a/drivers/macintosh/via-pmu.c
+++ b/drivers/macintosh/via-pmu.c
@@
loaded causes the system to lock up
because the cx88_audio_thread kthread was missing a try_to_freeze()
call, which caused it to go into a tight loop and result in softlockup
when suspending. Fix that.
Signed-off-by: Robert Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL
Hi.
On Tue, 2006-12-26 at 08:49 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
I've have git trees against a few versions besides Linus', and have just
moved all but Linus' to staging to help until you can get your new
hardware. If others were encouraged to do the same
Hi.
On Sat, 2007-01-06 at 23:10 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
On Tue, 2006-12-26 at 08:49 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
I've have git trees against a few versions besides Linus', and have just
moved all but Linus' to staging
Hi again.
On Sat, 2007-01-06 at 21:17 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Nigel Cunningham wrote:
On Tue, 2006-12-26 at 08:49 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
The two things git users can do to help is:
1. Make sure your alternatives file is set up correctly;
2. Keep your trees packed and pruned
Hi again.
On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 06:09 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 03:29:35PM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi again.
On Sat, 2007-01-06 at 21:17 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Nigel Cunningham wrote:
On Tue, 2006-12-26 at 08:49 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote
Hi.
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 09:57 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 08:23:32AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Fengguang Wu wrote:
The fastest and probably most important thing to add is some readahead
smarts to directories --- both to the htree
Hi.
On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 13:40, Herbert Xu wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 01:26:35PM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Here's a resend of a patch I'm using in Suspend2's new cryptoapi
support, which is needed for us to successfully compress pages using
deflate. It's along the lines
Hi.
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 08:36, David S. Miller wrote:
Many people still use 2.95 because it's still the fastest
way to get a kernel build done and that's important for
many people.
Yes, please don't remove 2.95 support.
Regards,
Nigel
--
Evolution.
Enumerate the requirements.
Consider
Hi.
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 08:54, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Good question. I'm not certain if Pavel intended to add
device_suspend(PMSG_FREEZE) to the reboot path. It was
there in only one instance. Pavel comments talk only about
the suspend path.
Yes, I think we
Hi.
On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 07:45, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Good question. I'm not certain if Pavel intended to add
device_suspend(PMSG_FREEZE) to the reboot path. It was
there in only one instance. Pavel comments talk only about
the suspend path.
Yes, I
Hi.
I finally found some time to finish this off. I don't really like the
end result - the macros looked clearer to me - but here goes. If it
looks okay, I'll seek sign offs from each of the affected driver
maintainers and from Ingo. Anyone else?
Regards,
Nigel
drivers/acpi/osl.c |
Hi.
Sorry for the slow response. Busy still.
On Sat, 2005-08-06 at 15:06, Patrick Mochel wrote:
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
I finally found some time to finish this off. I don't really like the
end result - the macros looked clearer to me - but here goes
Hi.
On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 11:27, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:46 am, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
Sorry for the slow response. Busy still.
On Sat, 2005-08-06 at 15:06, Patrick Mochel wrote:
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
I finally found some
Hi.
On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 12:44, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 11:30:23AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
Tony said he had it lying around somewhere and needed to find time to dust
it
off and get it up to speed.
PPC64 is on my ToDo list as well. Will take it up after the
Ok. Now that I've actually done some work toward getting it to work with
Suspend2, I'll give a more cogent response to Christoph's approach.
I believe it can work, but the algorithm in freeze() is a bit of a
concern.
Checking whether the todo list is empty is fine while we're the only
user, but
Hi.
Just to let you know that I have it working with Suspend2. One thing I
am concerned about is that we still need a way of determining whether a
process has been signalled but not yet frozen. At the moment you just
check p-todo, but if/when other functionality begins to use the todo
list, this
Hi.
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 12:01, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Just to let you know that I have it working with Suspend2. One thing I
am concerned about is that we still need a way of determining whether a
process has been signalled but not yet
(Sorry everyone else for emailing you too. I'm only doing so to honour
the convention of not removing people from replies.)
Hi Christoph.
As I look at the patch in preparation for sending it, I don't think I
really changed anything significant. (I didn't address the issues I
mentioned in the
Hi.
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 07:09, Daniel Phillips wrote:
It doesn't look like they'll be able to easily free up a page
flag for 2 reasons. First, PageReserved will probably be kept
around for at least one release. Second, swsusp and some arch
code (ioremap) wants to know about struct pages
Hi Nick et al.
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 14:59, Nick Piggin wrote:
Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 07:09, Daniel Phillips wrote:
It doesn't look like they'll be able to easily free up a page
flag for 2 reasons. First, PageReserved will probably be kept
around
Hi.
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 15:20, Nick Piggin wrote:
Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi Nick et al.
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 14:59, Nick Piggin wrote:
Changing the e820 code so it sets PageNosave instead of PageReserved,
along with a couple of modifications in swsusp itself should get rid
Hi Christian.
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 15:41, Christian Hesse wrote:
Hi everybody,
I have a little problem with software suspend 2.1.9.1[012] on
2.6.13-rc[3456].
The system hangs on resume if the AC adapter is not plugged in. Everything
works well if I use 2.1.9.5 on 2.6.12.x or plug in
Hi.
I've have git trees against a few versions besides Linus', and have just
moved all but Linus' to staging to help until you can get your new
hardware. If others were encouraged to do the same, it might help a lot?
Regards,
Nigel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
Hi.
On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 23:38 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, 18 December 2006 18:02, Jiri Slaby wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Hi,
On Monday, 18 December 2006 12:20, Jiri Slaby wrote:
Hi.
I got this oops while suspending:
[ 309.366557] Disabling non-boot
Hi.
On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 00:09 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Hi,
On Monday, 18 December 2006 23:44, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 23:38 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, 18 December 2006 18:02, Jiri Slaby wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Hi
Hi.
On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 22:04 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
I refreshed my git intro/cookbook for kernel hackers, at
http://linux.yyz.us/git-howto.html
This describes most of the commands I use in day-to-day kernel hacking.
Let me know if there are glaring errors or missing key commands.
Hi.
On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 06:44 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 22:04 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
I refreshed my git intro/cookbook for kernel hackers, at
http://linux.yyz.us/git-howto.html
This describes most of the commands I use in day
Hi.
On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 14:26 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:27:48 -0500 (EST)
Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, there it is, in all its shining glory.
It still doesn't run Excel.
Heretic!
:)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Hi.
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 22:07 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
Thanks, Nigel.
But I'm very sorry that the calculation in the patch was wrong.
Would you give this new patch a run?
Sorry for my slowness. I just did
time find /usr/src | wc -l
again:
Without patch: 35.137, 35.104, 35.351 seconds
Hi.
This patch adds support for PM_TRACE for the x86_64 architecture. Thanks
to Linus for help with my asm ignorance.
Please apply.
Signed-off-by: Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
arch/x86_64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S |7 +++
drivers/base/power/trace.c|4 +++-
include/asm
Hi.
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 12:51 +0100, Andreas Mohr wrote:
[...]
All in all intel-agp code semi-shattered my universe.
I didn't expect to find all these issues in rather important core code
for a wide-spread chipset vendor - it doesn't even log an
unhandled chipset: resuming may fail,
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 13:34 +1100, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
Hi,
I just encountered the following oops and general protection fault
trying to suspend/resume my laptop. I've got a Dell D820 laptop with a 2
GHz Core 2 Duo CPU. It usually suspends/resumes fine but not always. The
relevant
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 16:16 +1100, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
I just encountered the following oops and general protection fault
trying to suspend/resume my laptop. I've got a Dell D820 laptop with a 2
GHz Core 2 Duo CPU. It usually suspends/resumes fine but not always. The
relevant
The version of mm/vmscan.c in Linus' current tree has swapped parameters
in the shrink_all_zones declaration and call, used by the various
suspend-to-disk implementations. This doesn't seem to have any great
adverse effect, but it's clearly wrong.
Signed-off-by: Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED
-by: Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
diff -ruNp 930-vmscan.patch-old/mm/vmscan.c 930-vmscan.patch-new/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -1469,9 +1469,12 @@ static unsigned long shrink_all_zones(un
zone-nr_scan_inactive += (zone-nr_inactive prio) + 1;
if (zone-nr_scan_inactive
Hi.
Good arguments have already been put against it, so I'll just keep it
short and sweet (FWIW)
Nacked-by: Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Regards,
Nigel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo
Hi.
On Sat, 2006-11-18 at 23:47 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Move the loop from thaw_processes() to a separate function and call it
independently for kernel threads and user space processes so that the order
of thawing tasks is clearly visible.
Drop thaw_kernel_threads() which is never
Hi.
On Sat, 2006-11-18 at 23:51 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Move all labels in the swsusp code to the second column, so that they won't
fool diff -p.
This sounds like working around brokenness in diff -p. Should/could a
patch be submitted to the diff maintainer instead?
Regards,
Nigel
-
Hi Linus.
On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 09:33 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
When doing 'make oldconfig' we should ask about suspend/resume
debug features when SOFTWARE_SUSPEND is not enabled.
That's wrong.
I never use SOFTWARE_SUSPEND, and I think
Hi.
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Len, please pick this up, thanks.
On Tuesday, 5 of February 2008, Pavel Machek wrote:
Small documentation fixes/additions that accumulated in my tree.
Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
diff --git
Hi again.
Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
On Tuesday, 5 of February 2008, Pavel Machek wrote:
Small documentation fixes/additions that accumulated in my tree.
Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
0
acpi_sleep= [HW,ACPI]
Hi.
Michael Tokarev wrote:
I'm trying to glue hibernation and UPS control
together, and have a question.
When the system power comes off an UPS (Uninterruptable
Power Supply I mean), it's probably a good idea to turn
the UPS off when shutting the system down or hibernating.
Even with shutdown
Hi Michael.
Michael Tokarev wrote:
Nigel Cunningham wrote:
[]
That should be doable. How is your UPS connected? Presumably, with some
modifications to the appropriate driver, we could send the commands when
we're ready to shutdown. It would probably be useful whether or not your
hibernating
Hi all.
First up, sorry for not inlining the patch - trouble with line wrapping.
In 2.6.24-rc8, call_usermodehelper_exec has an exit path that can leave
the helper_lock() call at the top of the routine unbalanced. The
attached patch fixes this issue.
Signed-off-by: Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL
Hi.
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, 17 of January 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:36:51 -0700 Zan Lynx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-16 at 22:24 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
So I take everyone's latest and greatest product and injudiciously type the
above
Hi.
Jesse Barnes wrote:
Well, it seems like we'll have to fix drivers in either case, and isn't a
kexec approach fundamentally more sound and simple, design-wise? Rafael
pointed out some problems with properly setting wakeup states, but I think
that could be overcome...
No. AFAICS, kexec
Hi.
Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 09:45:02AM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
- people keep talking about hibernating to an ext3 fs mounted on fuse as
a limitation of the freezer. To do that with kexec, you're still going
to have to bmap the ext3 fs and pass the block list
Hi.
Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:40:06AM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 09:45:02AM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
- people keep talking about hibernating to an ext3 fs mounted on fuse as
a limitation of the freezer. To do
Hi.
Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:40:06AM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
No, with a freezer-based model you can basically *never* suspend to
anything related to FUSE or a userspace USB device or anything involving
userspace iSCSI initiators
Hi Greg.
Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 12:17:06PM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:40:06AM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 09:45:02AM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
- people keep talking
Hi.
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 21:46 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 01:42:42PM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi Paul.
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 18:31 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
Good to hear from you, Nigel!
Thanks :)
Should indeed be OK to freeze during
Hi.
On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 22:20 -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
1. We use the 21st page flag and we only have 20 on 32 bit NUMA platforms.
If it will help, I now have an implementation of the dynamically
allocated pageflags code I've posted in the past that is NUMA aware.
It's not memory
Hi again.
On Sat, 2007-02-03 at 00:53 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
1. We use the 21st page flag and we only have 20 on 32 bit NUMA platforms.
Ow. How were you thinking of fixing that?
Oh, guess the dyn_pageflags patch is not needed then - the dangers of
replying before reading a whole
Hi.
On Sat, 2007-02-03 at 20:22 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
This patch removes PF_NOFREEZE from the rcutorture and RCU-boost threads,
adding try_to_freeze() calls as required. Passes the usual tests, but
I don't have a good freeze test handy as yet.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 11:06 +0100, Christian Axelsson wrote:
Hello!
I'm trying to enable swsusp on my intel core due laptop but I can't find
the SUSPEND_SMP in menuconfig (or anywhere else except in .c-files).
Where is the option hidden and what are the dependencies? I'm using
Hi.
On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 22:35 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
Well the code appears simple enough, but I've not previously heard anyone
express a need for this feature. But I know how to cc people who might
have heard this.
You are,
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 19:10 -0600, hackmiester (Hunter Fuller) wrote:
On 4 February 2007, at 07:12, Jiri Slaby wrote:
Back to C!
This is a bit off topic, but what does this message mean? Is it
referring to the programming language?
It's just saying that the lowlevel assembly
Hi.
On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 18:32 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Hi there,
in two recent discussions (file_list_lock scalability and remount r/o
on suspend) I stumbled over this emergency remount feature. It's not
actually useful because it tries a potentially dangerous remount
despite
Hi.
On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 12:32 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Why do you think remounting filesystems is necessary? Are you getting
problems with some particular filesystem?
No. But anything in a removable device neets to be either
Hi.
On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 09:25 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Ok, as far as usage scenario goes, that's fair enough. But as to the
solution, I wonder though whether it's making life more complicated than
it needs to be. After all, we
This patch add x86_64 support for PM_TRACE, and shifts per-arch code to
the appropriate subdirectories.
Symbol exports are added so tracing can be used from drivers built as
modules too.
Please apply.
Signed-off-by: Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
arch/x86_64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S |7
On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 23:18 -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
Nigel Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- for (tracedata = __tracedata_start ; tracedata __tracedata_end ;
tracedata += 6) {
+ for (tracedata = __tracedata_start ; tracedata __tracedata_end ;
tracedata += 2 + sizeof
Hi.
I don't think this is already done (feel free to correct me if I'm
wrong)..
Can we start to NAK new drivers that don't have proper power management
implemented? There really is no excuse for writing a new driver and not
putting .suspend and .resume methods in anymore, is there?
Regards,
Hi.
On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 23:17 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 08:57 +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
I don't think this is already done (feel free to correct me if I'm
wrong)..
Can we start to NAK new drivers that don't have proper power management
Hi.
On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 23:44 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, 9 February 2007 23:26, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 23:17 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 08:57 +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
I don't think
Hi.
On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 00:12 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I think if CONFIG_PM_DEBUG is set, the core should warn about drivers not
having .suspend or .resume routines.
The only problem with that is, not everyone turns on CONFIG_PM_DEBUG.
CONFIG_PM instead?
Well, I can
Hi.
On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 19:50 -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 23:17 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 08:57 +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Hi.
I don't think this is already done (feel free
Hi.
On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 20:59 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
On 2/9/07, Robert Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would disagree that it's a peripheral issue, it's pretty core these
days, at least for any hardware that you can stuff in a laptop (though a
fair number of desktops get suspended
Hi.
On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 19:50 -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
It also kind of bothers me that if a driver has no suspend/resume
functions, and you suspend and resume the system, we don't complain
about it even though there's a very good chance that device is not going
to function properly.
Hi Dmitry!
On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 22:27 -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
Hi Nigel,
On Friday 09 February 2007 21:05, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
[ 17.684475] Device driver serio0 lacks bus and class support for being
resumed.
[ 17.684724] Device driver serio1 lacks bus and class support
Hi.
On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 03:42 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 08:57:49AM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Can we start to NAK new drivers that don't have proper power management
implemented? There really is no excuse for writing a new driver and not
putting .suspend
Gidday.
On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 10:34 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 10 February 2007 04:02, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 19:50 -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
It also kind of bothers me that if a driver has no suspend/resume
functions, and you suspend
Hi all.
Please excuse me if this has already been answered. I'm not currently
subscribed to LKML.
I've just been preparing a new tux-on-ice release against Linus' current tree,
and encountered a failure to freeze pid 1 when seeking to resume, using an
initrd:
[ 74.192734] Freezing of tasks
the
otherwise universal value of true. Add support for catching this model
via DMI matching.
There have been no BIOS updates for the VPCSE15FG, so I've not specified
a BIOS version in the criteria for matching.
Signed-off-by: Nigel Cunningham ni...@nigelcunningham.com.au
---
arch/x86/include/asm
From b41864867464bfe0e2d114528bc9b39e2d9f546e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nigel Cunningham ni...@nigelcunningham.com.au
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 13:03:50 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] Fix rbd use after free.
This patch addresses Coverity #753114.
The use of ceph_opts in rbd_add is currently confusing
From b4a7ab768df17e1cda7d0ae8744e986215a644c3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nigel Cunningham ni...@nigelcunningham.com.au
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 13:53:51 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] Remove unused variable in rbd_dev_probe_update_spec.
As an aside to the previous patch, remove the unused local
From 68e866b8eac534405ae16b79b7ffd9de05c11c67 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nigel Cunningham ni...@nigelcunningham.com.au
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 13:50:22 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] Fix uninitialised variable in rbd_dev_probe_update_spec.
The local variable ret can be used uninitialised in the error
Hi.
On Friday 06 July 2007 08:46:54 Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 11:30 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
...but the moment you start blocking tasks that done driver request,
you _do_ have mini-freezer of your own, with pretty much the same
problems.
No, not at all the
Hi.
On Friday 06 July 2007 09:20:43 Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
Will you be able to guarantee that every place where a task can/will block
will be harmless place? If so, how will you guarantee that? How will you
debug issues where a task occasionally doesn't block in the right place,
Hi.
On Friday 06 July 2007 11:19:32 Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Jul 05, 2007, at 19:35:11, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
On Friday 06 July 2007 09:20:43 Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
No, the freezer creates all those places what are harmful for a
task to block because they will break the freezer
Hi.
On Friday 06 July 2007 13:54:15 Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Fri, 2007-07-06 at 09:35 +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
Nice try :) Okay then, you remove the freezer, try hibernating, then get
back
to me after you've fixed your filesystem because some process that wasn't
frozen
Hi.
On Friday 06 July 2007 14:41:40 Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
I/O from swsusp and suspend2 use bios directly, so the page cache isn't an
issue for them (apart from the fact that Suspend2 saves the page cache
separately so it can get a full image). Not sure about uswsusp.
Only
Hi Kyle.
On Friday 06 July 2007 15:01:48 Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Jul 06, 2007, at 00:03:15, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
The kind of thing Linus was talking about would limit you (as
swsusp and uswsusp do now) to only half the amount of memory.
How so? Suppose hibernate is implemented like
Hi.
On Friday 06 July 2007 17:02:53 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, 6 July 2007 00:00, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The syncing of filesystems from within the freezer is generally not
needed.
Change freeze_processes() so that it doesn't
Hi.
On Friday 06 July 2007 17:13:27 Miklos Szeredi wrote:
To get more serious and practical though, I think the solution is to
fuzz the userspace/kernelspace distinction. What we really want to
do is freeze things that submit I/O, then sync, then freeze anything
that processes I/O and
Hi.
On Friday 06 July 2007 19:09:43 Miklos Szeredi wrote:
Moreover, if FUSE implements syncing, then the sync from within the
freezer
will almost certainly deadlock.
Rafael, think positively: by the time fuse implements sync(), the
freezer will be long gone ;)
Now you are
Hi.
On Friday 06 July 2007 19:05:53 Miklos Szeredi wrote:
On Fri, 2007-07-06 at 09:13 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
Another myth, that has been debunked already. The problem is: how do
you define fuse processes? There's no theoretical or even practial
way to do that.
It could
Hi.
On Saturday 07 July 2007 01:04:51 Stefan Seyfried wrote:
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 09:04:27PM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
If confusion persist after 4 seconds hard power down... then you h ve
hw/BIOS problem. Complain to whoever is manufacturing that beast.
Adding i8042.reset
right. I used to signal TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE (I take it the
INTERRUPTIBLE above is a typo) tasks, but ignore them when deciding whether
freezing was successful.
I've since dropped those modifications, but only because I'm actively trying
to get closer to mainline.
Regards,
Nigel
--
Nigel
Hi.
On Saturday 07 July 2007 17:50:18 Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
The main limitation of the freezer is that it cannot handle
uninterruptible
tasks. Namely, if there are uninterruptible tasks in the system, the
freezer
returns an error, which makes it impossible to suspend the system.
Hi.
On Saturday 07 July 2007 01:04:51 Stefan Seyfried wrote:
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 09:04:27PM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
If confusion persist after 4 seconds hard power down... then you h ve
hw/BIOS problem. Complain to whoever is manufacturing that beast.
Adding i8042.reset
Hi.
On Monday 09 July 2007 09:01:27 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Hi,
On Monday, 9 July 2007 00:13, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Actaully, I'm perfectly fine with that, as long as each task blocked
by the
driver due to suspend has PF_FROZEN (or something similar) set. Then,
at
least
401 - 500 of 1220 matches
Mail list logo
